Author Topic: Should men accept modern marriage? (Read 1478 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** May 24, 2013, 06:10:59 PM »

http://orthosphere.org/2013/05/20/must-a-traditional-man-accept-modern-marriage/

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** May 24, 2013, 06:27:47 PM »

Make no mistake, the state makes the wife head of the household:

http://youtu.be/Wl02qtkHUkw?t=25s

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** May 24, 2013, 06:36:00 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Make no mistake, the state makes the wife head of the household:

http://youtu.be/Wl02qtkHUkw?t=25s

I would like to think most Traditional Catholic men and women would never have to go through this. Its absolutely horrifying.

Tiffany · « **Reply #3 on:** May 24, 2013, 06:52:13 PM »

I'm against no fault divorce but if we do not view women as providers there needs to be alimony. We cannot have a society where women have 4 children before 25 and then is expected to fend for herself after a divorce. Reductions or the elimination of alimony or temporary only alimony is part of feminism.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 24, 2013, 06:57:32 PM »

Adulterous women should not have custody of children. They shouldn't get a dime either.

Tiffany · « **Reply #5 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:02:17 PM »

The problem is the divorce law though not alimony. The system is terrible but I don't think alimony should be attacked.

Laws had a double standard for adultery, that wasn't right

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:08:12 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Laws had a double standard for adultery, that wasn't right

The adultery of women in marriage is a graver sin per St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa.

A man is required to support a wife, if she leaves him for another, he should not be required to give one red cent.

That's not a double standard at all.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:18:07 PM »

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=WEjIaUuODHQC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PR5

Tiffany · « **Reply #8 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:18:12 PM »

Men could have affairs without legal consequence while it was grounds for divorcing a woman.

If you think it's just or not, it is still a double standard.

Tiffany · « **Reply #9 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:21:01 PM »

I will read that, thank you.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:26:09 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

If you think it's just or not, it is still a double standard.

You're talking about the laws of various countries, I think you have Great Britain in mind.

That there is a more severe penalty for woman's adultery is not a double standard. A woman who acts in a manner to make a man uncertain of the paternity of the children born to his wife is committing a graver offense than a philandering husband. An offense with graver consequences.

If a woman left her husband in the old days she was not required to support him.

Is that a "double standard" too?

When speaking of spousal support, there is no double standard in not requiring a husband to support an adulterous spouse.

Tiffany · « **Reply #11 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:29:23 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Men could have affairs without legal consequence while it was grounds for divorcing a woman.

If you think it's just or not, it is still a double standard.

Even it's thought to be worse for a wife, it's still a grave sin for a man. I can't believe Aquinas believed men should essentially get a free pass without social & legal consequences but women should be put away.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:34:17 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

I can't believe Aquinas believed men should essentially get a free pass without social & legal consequences but women should be put away.

No, I don't think he said that. It isn't relevant to the question as to whether a woman who leaves a husband for another deserves support.

Tiffany · « **Reply #13 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:39:02 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Tiffany
If you think it's just or not, it is still a double standard.

You're talking about the laws of various countries, I think you have Great Britain in mind.

That there is a more severe penalty for woman's adultery is not a double standard. A woman who acts in a manner to make a man uncertain of the paternity of the children born to his wife is committing a graver offense than a philandering husband. An offense with graver consequences.

If a woman left her husband in the old days she was not required to support him.

Is that a "double standard" too?

When speaking of spousal support, there is no double standard in not requiring a husband to support an adulterous spouse.

I think (not 100%) except for Louisiana most of our state laws are based on the British.

What about giving an unborn child a disease like AIDS or syphilis that kills them or leaves them handicapped? Or destroying a wife who is dependent on him?

I don't think women should be providers at all as far as a wife paying a husband. I agree a husband should not have to support an adulterous wife. That doesn't mean alimony should be done away with.

Tiffany · « **Reply #14 on:** May 24, 2013, 07:41:40 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Tiffany
I can't believe Aquinas believed men should essentially get a free pass without social & legal consequences but women should be put away.

No, I don't think he said that. It isn't relevant to the question as to whether a woman who leaves a husband for another deserves support.

My thing with that is some of the older civil laws were double standard. A man can divorce a wife for adultery but a woman can't divorce a husband for adultery.